Fashion slop is degrading the planet

By Rebekah White

It’s not just your imagination: the average item of clothing today is worse quality than ever before.

Made to be worn less and replaced more often, these garments are fuelling an accelerating cycle of overconsumption that is driving the fashion industry’s environmental impact to record levels.

More garments are being manufactured today than at any previous point in history.

Over the past two years alone, the fashion industry’s emissions increased by 14 per cent, according to Bloomberg.

Part of that is due to increased production of polyester, a fabric derived from fossil fuels.

It’s not a blip. Global clothing production has doubled over the past 15 years, according to the UN, while the number of times an item is worn has decreased by more than a third.

“Most of society are in this cycle of buying more for less,” says Michael Lee, a professor in the Faculty of Business and Economics at the University of Auckland.

He studies what makes people buy – or opt out of buying – consumer goods.

The fashion industry is a microcosm of global capitalism, he says.

The drive to increase profits involves increasing production, which requires more consumption.

“And then it’s this vicious upward cycle of mass consumerism,” he says. “Fast fashion is probably the most tangible form of this.”

Sidestep fast fashion – but beware of greenwashing

When it comes to individual choices, you’ve almost certainly heard the advice before: buy quality clothing, buy it second hand, and look out for opportunities to repair or recycle it.

But there are some greenwashing traps to look out for, says Lee.

Recent research by Lee and his PhD student-turned-colleague Claire Beach finds that a fashion brand’s takeback system or recycling scheme doesn’t make it sustainable.

“There is this signalling of less consumption by some businesses, but it’s only really ‘less-ish’ because it will be tactics like, ‘Bring your old clothes back and we will recycle them – oh, by the way, here’s a voucher for your trouble’.

"And the voucher is literally encouraging you to buy something right there and then – at a discount.”

This means companies can look as though they’re part of a circular economy, or helping to mitigate waste.

“But it’s still part of the system that is designed to increase growth and profitability.”

Even if buying second hand, reducing consumption overall is the key to making a difference, says Lee.

The supply of second-hand clothes still depends on a wasteful main production system.

“It’s maybe one step removed in that you’re not buying it direct from the manufacturer, but it still relies on the manufacturing process in the first place.

"A lot of the ‘vintage’ stuff now is also stuff that isn’t actually that old, right?

"It’s maybe five years old, so it’s almost like there are elements of fast fashion that are creeping into vintage.”

Avoid brands ignoring their own sustainability targets

Environmentally minded shoppers usually choose to support brands that talk about sustainability targets over one that doesn’t.

However, just because a company has published sustainability goals doesn’t mean that it’s actually moving towards them.

McKinsey’s State of Fashion 2025 report points out that more than 60 percent of fashion brands are behind on their sustainability targets.

Some fashion brands aren’t only behind on their goals – they’re actively travelling in the opposite direction from them.

Emissions increased at 40 percent of fashion brands after they published their sustainability targets, according to the McKinsey report, while others dropped their net-zero commitments entirely – after announcing them.

McKinsey’s analysis suggests that this is a matter of choice on the part of brands, not cost: it found that most brands could reduce their emissions substantially – up to 60 percent – for a fraction of their revenues.

Support low-production, low-growth, high-quality brands

The market is stacked against companies that want to downshift or take on a ‘sufficiency’ model where they believe ‘enough is enough’, says Lee.

“As admirable as that is, it does open up this long-term risk.

"While you’re doing things from a minimalist and sufficiency perspective, all the other companies around you are growing, and the more they grow, the more profitable they are, the more likely they can either outcompete you or just buy you and absorb you into this big machine.”

It makes it very difficult to find these brands in the market.

“It’s almost like you’re an endangered species and all the other animals are growing and breeding and getting bigger and bigger, and you just kind of get yourself backed into a little corner and you become harder to find, and people start to not even consider you because it’s so difficult to find you.”

Companies focused on quality and longevity still exist – it’s just harder than ever to find them, and their garments are expensive to shoppers conditioned by fast-fashion prices.

In addition, these brands face increasing shopper scepticism given that elsewhere in the market, high prices are no longer the sign of high quality.

Disincentivise consumption by making disposal more expensive

In 2025, Chris Schulz reported for Consumer magazine that fast fashion “is clogging up landfill in record amounts” and cited one estimate that 350kg of textile waste is being sent to landfill every minute in New Zealand. That includes home furnishings and offcuts from manufacturing as well as tonnes of discarded and damaged clothing.

Because clothing is so cheap to consume, the only way to economically disincentivise consumption might be to increase the cost of a maximalist way of life, says Lee.

What if it were more expensive to dispose of unwanted garments?

If individuals had to pay the costs of throwing away clothing that’s out of style, broken, or worn out – would that change consumption patterns?

“Maybe that’s what we need in order to be able to slow down consumption,” says Lee.

Adopt the idea of sufficiency – that enough is enough

Alternatively, shoppers could adopt a concept that researchers call ‘sufficiency’.

It’s the idea that beyond a certain level, increased consumption doesn’t improve people’s lives – so we should aim to consume close to that level.

However, this requires adopting a different mindset to the one broadcast through popular culture and advertising.

“People typically see anti-consumption or voluntary simplification as some sort of sacrifice, right? Like they’re missing out on something,” says Lee.

“Certainly, a lot of the marketing system, especially around fast fashion, is like, ‘Oh you will miss out if you don’t partake, don’t be the one that’s left out’.

"There’s a lot of urgency and social comparison played upon.”

There isn’t a countercultural movement around this yet, says Lee.

“We haven’t quite reached this tipping point where sufficiency has become mainstream behaviour.”

But the concept of sufficiency can be applied to other forms of consumption, too.

“It’s not just fast fashion but fast tech – changing devices every couple of years, appliances being harder to repair – that disposable consumption cycle.”

Ultimately, it requires government regulation and global action

“Fashion is one of the least-regulated global businesses,” writes US investigative journalist Dana Thomas.

“Unlike the automobile, aviation or agricultural industries, fashion has remarkably few requirements to track, disclose or limit its environmental impact.”

Thomas says one solution is for governments to require all fashion brands to disclose publicly how much they produce, then penalise them for what they fail to sell.

Around the world, some governments are attempting to combat the impact of ultra-fast-fashion companies.

In September, France imposed tariffs on a suite of fashion brands including Shein, Temu and AliExpress.

If more countries did the same, that would be a good start. In the meantime, says Lee, consumers everywhere need to understand the part they play in the machine of fast fashion and demand meaningful change.

Overproduction is “the obvious place to start”, writes Thomas.

It isn’t “an accident or an occasional forecasting error”; it’s the actual business model.

“We need to know how much the industry is producing, and at what cost to the environment. Consumers should be able to buy clothes without contributing to the reckless degradation of the planet.”

• The world is facing unprecedented environmental challenges. Planetary Solutions, an initiative of the Sustainability Hub at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, and Newsroom, explores these issues – and the practical ways we can all be part of the solution.